perfidy

Blackfive has some extensive notes on how to prepare for a deployment in Iraq.

James, of the indispensable Outside the Beltway, links to a New York Times/AP report that a high-ranking Al Qaida officer has been captured in Iraq by US and Kurdish forces.

Osama bin Laden's terror network is seeking a foothold in Iraq as evidenced by the recent arrest of a top al-Qaida operative trying to enter northern Iraq, the commander of coalition forces said Thursday. Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez cited the capture of Hassan Ghul by U.S.-allied Kurdish forces as evidence of al-Qaida's interest in establishing operations in this country. Officials in Washington reported Ghul's arrest Saturday, describing him as a senior recruiter and facilitator for al-Qaida who reported directly to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, one of the architects of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks who was captured in March near Islamabad, Pakistan.

"The capture of Ghul is pretty strong proof that al-Qaida is trying to gain a foothold here to continue their murderous campaigns,'' Sanchez said. "Ghul's capture is great news for both the Iraqis, the coalition and the international community's war against terrorism.''

US officials have said that most of the attacks against coalition forces have come from the remnants of Saddam's Baathist regime. But recently, military officials have noted the use of "al-Qaida-like tactics," including suicide attacks.

Before the war, I heard many people argue that the religious fanatic al Qaida would never work with the secular Baathist. They denied any connection between Saddam's regime and al Qaida. This was obviously untrue at the time, and has become even less true over the last year. Even if the two groups absolutely hated each other, they would still have the common interest of defeating or at least attacking the US. And it is after all an Arab proverb, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." For decades, there has been a terrorist network. The IRA trained in Libya. Then the IRA trained Columbian drug cartels. The various Marxist or pseudo Marxist terror groups exchanged numbers while training in the USSR, or at Soviet sponsored training camps in the Middle East. Whether the terror groups were Marxist, Religious, Nationalist or just bugfuck, they all have each other’s numbers in the Rolodex.
And this network was in communication with the intelligence agencies of the nations that are or were state supporters of terror. We know that al Qaida met in the Czech Republic with mid level officers in Saddam’s intelligence apparatus. We know that Ansar Al-Islam has been operating in Iraq, and had training camps there. The capture of a ranking member of al Qaida is just one more piece of evidence.

We have been told to be careful in our denunciations of Islam. It’s only a few isolated, hateful wackos who are attacking us. We have also been told by some that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with and in fact was a distraction from the war on terror.

But the more I read, the more I believe that the problem is not so small. There is a continuum of Islamic terror that stretches from the terrorists themselves at one end; through the Imams who preach hatred for the west in particular and everything that isn’t Islam in general (witness my recent post on the murders of the Buddhist monks, and the Taliban’s destruction of the Buddhist statues); through the nominally secular Arab governments that support the terrorists with money and sanctuary, and whose media spread anti-semitism and hatred for America; to the ‘Arab Street’ that openly and loudly celebrates things like 9/11 or the Columbia accident; and on to the mass of the Islamic population that never says a word and thus gives tacit support for all the evil that is done in their name.

It is not enough to hunt down individual terrorists and their cells, destroy their training camps and cut off their funding. We might manage that, sometimes with and sometimes without the cooperation of the governments in the region. But that doesn’t end our problem. They still hate us, not just a few, but majorities in the polls I’ve seen. Granted, they’re being lied to by the official media and their religious leaders. But so were the Germans.

Trent Telenko and Wretchard are right when they fear that a successful large scale attack on the United States could cause widespread devastation in the Middle East. We have been restrained up til now, but there is little hope that we would be if we lost a city to a terrorist nuke. And that possibility is still very real. Libya’s nuclear program was shockingly far advanced, and we knew nothing of it.

We are fighting evil. There should be no doubt about this. People who target civilians for purposes of terror are evil. People who give aid and comfort to them are evil. And the population of Islam is complicit in that evil, because they celebrate when it succeeds, and never utter a word of criticism. Even among the Muslims in this country, we hear very little in the way of condemnation for terror, and we know that their views are not being suppressed by authoritarian governments.

That’s what we’re up against. The third totalitarian movement we have faced in the last century. And they have clearly stated that we are their enemies. We need to take them at their word, and defeat them. If Hitler had been opposed in the twenties, or even in the mid thirties, millions of lives would have been saved. We waited. Communism was worse, and there were many in the west who defended it, excused it, and lied about it. Nevertheless, we opposed it. Right now, Islamic totalitarianism is weak. Now is the time to stamp it out, before it gains the capability do us serious harm.

Rocket Jones is spreading the news about the Mars airplane that is under development by Aurora Flight Sciences: 

An exploration vehicle like this would vastly expand our ability to explore Mars. Rather than being limited to a very small area near the landing site, we would be able to cover hundreds of square miles at close range. A very cool thing, indeed. 

[wik] And yes, I was too lazy to make up my own clever title.

The prescription drug benefit will cost $540 billion instead of the $400 billion we were promised. I didn't see that coming.

AMac, who has recently graced our comments, recommends this symposium from Slate, which includes Berman; and Michael Totten links to this Dissent Magazine piece by Berman.

I have to say that I'm impressed by his writing, and thinking. Go read them, and we'll talk more about this tomorrow.

Here's a report that the Army has been authorized to increase its manpower by 30,000 under an emergency authority expected to last four years. The Army and Defense Department have rejected calls for permanent increases, saying that it is too early for permanent increases that would interfere with efforts to streamline and modernize the Army.

Both Republicans and Democrats in Congress have been making ever more insistant demands that the Army increase its size. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker said a permanent increase would force the Army to expand permanently before it had made needed structural and operating changes.

While I recognize the need to make those changes, there is little question that we need to have more people in uniform. A couple more divisions' worth in the army, plus the necessary support troops is a minimum. We need to have troops for our current commitments, such as in Korea, for any emergency, such as in Iraq; more troops to relieve troops committed to an emergency; and for good measure even more troops to deal with another emergency. We only have enough for the first two, and the pressure on our soldiers in terms of lengthy deployments and the like will mean that a lot of them will not be reenlisting. This will create even greater problems in the future is this problem is not addressed now.

Wretchard, of the Belmont Club has also taken up the topic of the possibility of US action in Lebanon. I discussed this earlier, but Wrethard goes into a little more detail, and provides us with some more sources.

The Jerusalem Post article rightly suggests that any US special forces deployment would inevitably bring then into direct conflict with the Syrian occupiers of Lebanon and the sponsors the Hezbollah. Their use would perforce be accompanied by the organization and training of indigenous Lebanese auxiliaries, a feature of all US special forces campaigns from Indochina to Afghanistan. The special forces would be supported by air units and fire support, plus light infantry to prevent a repetition of the "Blackhawk Down" scenario. Units could draw on equipment already prepositioned in Israel, located in the mysterious Sites 51, 53 and 54. All in all, it would create a strategic nightmare for Damascus. With Americans in the Bekaa 40 km west of downtown Damascus -- less than a marathon run, the Israeli army on the Golan Heights a mere 60 km south of the capital and American forces on the Iraqi border 300 km to the east and Turkey on the northern border, the Assad regime would be literally encircled.

The US probably feels that it has the Iraqi problem in hand and may want to maintain the operational tempo in its wider campaign against the Middle Eastern dictatorships. An American deployment to the Bekaa would open a new low-intensity warfare front which would resemble a cross between the campaign in Afghanistan and the recent anti-Saddam counterinsurgency in Iraq. In the light of recent experience, the Pentagon may feel confident in challenging the Syrians and Hezbollah to what has become a familiar operation of war with a known cost and proven methods. But to the Syrians, Americans in the Bekaa will be a mortal threat, which they must prevent or repel. If they cannot, the spring of 2005 will see a new regime in Lebanon hostile to Syria and their Hezbollah lackeys in flight. It would also sound the death-knell of Arafat's Palestinian Authority, which will be boxed in and probably beset by American-sponsored auxiliaries. A successful campaign to topple Syria would in turn mean American control of a continuous swath of territory between the Mediterranean and the Iranian border. It would cut off the Arabian Peninsula to the north and squeeze Saudi Arabia and Yemen onto American deployments on the Horn of Africa -- of which the Washington Post's report of a return to Somalia would be a part.

Will it happen? Wait and see. Can it happen. Yes it can.

We have already been chasing insurgents over the border, so only the scope of the operation would really come as a surprise to the Syrians. There is little that they could do to prevent it. Keeping the fire hot under the nations that support terror is a very good thing. Our actions in Iraq led to the capitulation of Libya's Qaddaffi, but we do not want other state supporters of terrorism to think that we will stop with Iraq. Actions like this, along with a Presidential statement of support for the democracy movement in Iran would go a long way indeed to further our cause.

Michael Totten writes about recent Islamist attacks on Buddhist monks in Thailand. (Totten linked to a post on Totally Whacked, and his post has a dead link to a story. But I found another one.) He makes this comment about the murders:

It's not because Buddhist monks are "colonialist oppressors," nor is it because Buddhists drive the engine of corporate globalization. And it's not because Thailand is a superpower that deserves to be brought to heel. Thai Buddhists don't need to ask "why do they hate us?" It's because Buddhists are "infidels." And that's that.

A commenter on that post had this to say:

Whoever thinks hatred of America and Israel in the ME is about "the Occupation" is a total idiot. It's about Jihad. This is a war that has been raging since the 7th century when the muslim hordes burst out of the Arabian peninsula and captured and converted the Christian provinces of Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Antioch, etc., invaded Persia and swept across North Africa towards my beloved Spain. Only in the 17th century were they finally stopped at the gates of Vienna itself. Osama knows what this war is about, and he's been trying to tell us. But we insist it's about U.S. "policies". What a bunch of Liberal claptrap. Why don't we take Osama and the extremists at their word? To them this is a Jihad, and has been since the 7th century. The Crusades was merely an attempt to roll them back, and they're still pissed about it. Why do you think they still call us "crusaders"? Get with the program people. This has little or nothing to do with U.S. "policies" and "oil". This is a civilizational conflict that has raged across the centuries and will continue to do so.

Our policies did not create 9/11. If bad American foreign policy were the root cause of terrorism, why have we not been plagued with sixty years of suicide attacks from the Japanese? We handled them rather roughly in the Second World War, even dropped a couple nukes on them. It is condescending to imagine that another's actions are solely determined by your own. We need to take the terrorists and their supporters at their word, and not ask why they hate us. They've told us why.

Ya think? The Detroit Free Press has the best precis on the sordid issue:

Cleveland: Indians minor leaguer Kazuhito Tadano is asking for forgiveness for his appearance in a gay porn video in which he engaged in a homosexual act. Tadano took part in the video three years ago as a college student. "All of us have made mistakes in our lives," Tadano said, reading a statement in English. "Hopefully, you learn from them and move on." Shunned by Japanese baseball teams, the 23-year-old pitcher signed with the Indians last March. They think he can make their club this spring. Through an interpreter, Tadano added: "I'm not gay. I'd like to clear that fact up right now."

Well, I'm glad that's all straightened out. So to speak. The Cleveland Plain Dealer has a couple articles on the subject as well. It just never ends when you're a Cleveland fan. Well, he may be a straight gay porn star pitcher, but at least he's our straight gay porn star pitcher.

Well, it looks like Kerry slaughtered Dean, Dean doesn't realize it, Clark and Edwards are altogether too happy given the implications of Vince Lombardi's aphorism, "2nd place is the first loser" (though Clark is currently edgin Edwards slightly) and Lieberman should be throwing in the towel - he didn't even clear double digits.

In surprising news, Kucinich got 2%, and Sharpton got 0%. The alien vote must have turned out in force to put Kucinich that close to victory, and as for the Don King of Democratic politics, Bejus Pundit said it best:

Sharpton got more of the vote than he deserved, IMHO. Should have been in the negatives.

James at Outside the Beltway has a good round up of the night's events.

Now that that's over, we can begin obsessing over South Carolina and the other primaries just around the corner. What blew my mind is this:

Ballot	Overall	White (58%)	Black (42%)
Clark	14%	19%	7%
Dean	9%	10%	8%
Edwards	21%	22%	19%
Kerry	17%	20%	13%
Kucinich	1%	1%	1%
Lieberman	5%	8%	1%
Sharpton	15%	6%	27%
Undecided	18%	14%	24%

Sharpton, who as I mentioned is the Don King of Democratic politics (thanks, Johno) is getting 15% of the support, and is third in that race. This is insupportable. I saw an interview with the good reverend (Crap! Now I have to wash my mouth out. Comedy is not pretty.) and he stated that his explicit aim was to gather enough delegates to play a kingmaker role in the nomination process, or at the very least to bend the Democratic platform to his will. Don't say he didn't warn you. It still sickens me that he has any, any credibility whatsoever.

But, if Edwards wins as projected, its a three way race as I don't see Clark pulling off any big upsets.

The Federal Government is closing early today, for fear of evil weather. Thus, I am homeward bound. I leave you with this thought: is it better to have the million plus federal workers go home spread out out over several hours - risking the tail end Charlie's exposure to an ice storm; or send them all home at once, overloading a metro system which is already running at as low as 50% capacity on some lines due to ice on the rails?

You be the judge.

Citizen Smash gives us the poop on the increasing militarization of space, and the dangers that it may bring.

Rocket Jones found a nifty mapmaking utility on the magical interwebs. You can tell it what states you've been in, and it will draw a map for you. Here's where I been:

All educated folk know that the third millennium began on Jan 1, 2001. Not in 2000 as some rubes entranced with nice, round numbers believe. I would argue that the Millennium and our current, nameless decade began over nine months later, on the morning of September 11. It is convenient to divide recent history into bite sized nuggets. Ten years is a useful period of time, and we have very clear conceptions of the fifties, sixties, seventies, etc. But when exactly do they begin and end, if not on Jan 1 every ten years?

Here's how I would break it down:

• The Twenties began on November 11, 1918 and ended on October 29, 1929.
• The Thirties came to an abrupt halt on Dec 7, 1941.
• The Forties is a tough one. I am tempted to say that the decade concluded on August 14, 1945, but in the end I'll have to go with June 25, 1950.
• The Fifties took a bow on January 20, 1961.
• The Sixties died on May 4, 1970.
• The Seventies shuffled off into the sunset January 20, 1981.
• The Eighties took a powder November 9, 1989.
• And the Nineties ended on September 11, 2001, making it the longest decade in the twentieth century.

We can have the same fun with centuries - the nineteenth century lasted from 1815 to 1914. The eighteenth century began in 1702. The seventeenth century started in 1607. (This is for American history, of course.)

Not serious history, but something to idle away a few moments.

Over the last couple weeks, I've found that I've been hitting a few blogs almost everyday. The three blogs below stand out for their ability to write incisive commentary and to consistently find cool things to link to. Links to their blogs now have a permanent home over to my right, and below you'll find an example of the fine work of each:

• James of Outside the Beltway talks about Democrats returning to their roots. (I linked this earlier, as well.)
• John Hudock of Commonsense and Wonder talks about Euthanasia, and I don't think Godwin's law applies here.
• Michael Totten gives us some liberal perspective on why we went to war on Iraq

It comes to our ears that Bush is moving away from his spendthrift ways and is coming close to a total freeze on discretionary spending in the next budget. Bush will propose an increase of less than 1% for all federal programs save those for homeland security and defense. Fiscal conservatives have been savaging the president for "spending like a drunken sailor" and apparently this move is at least in some part a reaction to that criticism.

But the president will propose increasing governmentwide homeland security funding by 9.7 percent in the fiscal 2005 budget, and the military budget is expected to increase by a small amount.

"This is going to be an austere budget," White House spokesman Trent Duffy said of the budget that Mr. Bush will send to Congress on Feb. 2. The less-than-1 percent growth will be the smallest since Mr. Bush took office in 2001 — and the lowest since his father, President Bush, proposed his fiscal 1993 budget.

Conservatives are happy with the proposal, though some are dubious, myself included. Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the Heritage Foundation, said the proposal is "definitely a good start."

"The key question is whether the White House will back up this proposal with a veto threat, because last year the president proposed a 4 percent increase and, with the passage of the omnibus spending bill, he's about to sign a 9 percent increase," he said.

If - if - the president actually follows through with this, and puts the arm on congress and even threatens a veto (he has yet to veto a bill) then this will be a very good thing. Deficits, all things being equal, are not a good thing. However, there are reasons to run them, and war and recessions being some of them. So I am not opposed - in principle - to deficits. However, the spending surge under this Republican president has been disturbing to say the least. Most of the spending increases have not been for the military or for homeland security but rather for social and other programs.

These increases, which Bush either proposed himself or did nothing to hinder combined with the recession stricken economy and the tax cuts to bring about our current deficit situation. But the light at the end of the tunnel is that the tax cuts did their work as a stimulus to the economy, which is now looks to be in the early phases of another ten year boom. If the president restrains spending, the increase in revenue through from the growth in the economy should level out the deficits as it did back in the mid nineties. But spending has to be restrained - because its for damn sure that the government can outspend the economy, and will if not watched carefully.

Hat tip to Pejman for the link.

The good folks over at Begging to Differ have put up their weekly Sunday Comics, and I recommend you check it out. Other cool things I've seen include:

• Newspaper Ads over at Rocket Jones.
• The XM8, a love letter to an assault rifle, over at Murdoc Online.
• Insults Unpunished talks about the Syria situation.
• James of OTB has a good one on national policy and partisan politics.
• Too many good posts to list over at Commonsense and Wonder. I hate those guys, I really do.
• And, as Allah Pundit said it best, "Conclusive proof from the Clark campaign that there are wrong answers to subjective questions."

Tiger, raggin' and rantin' has come up with a useful method for expanding the range of your blogging. I think I'll be giving this a try:

Let's call it Go Back Five. Pick any blog on your blogroll, open the main page, go to the fifth entry, find a link to another blog, click it, if archived page, go to main page, go to fifth entry, click on a link to another blog, do this three more times until you are lookin' at the main page of that last blog, then find somethin' on that blog to blurb about.

This could certainly give you a boost out of any blogging rut you may find yourself in. Or waste a few hours at work, at the vey least.

Ap News has an interview with Dennis Miller, in advance of his return to cable tomorrow evening at 9:00 on CNBC. There's some good stuff there, as you'd expect, but this particular bit caught my ear:

"The United States right now is simultaneously the world's most loved, hated, feared and admired nation."

"In short," he said, "we're Frank Sinatra."

Newsweek has the scoop on why Clark was sacked as NATO CinC. Apparently, he was less than forthcoming with his superiors in the Pentagon during the Kosovo campaign:

Clark ran afoul of Cohen [then Defense Secretary] and Shelton [Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] by being less than totally forthcoming in morning conference calls during the Kosovo war in the spring of 1999. From his NATO headquarters in Brussels, Clark wanted to wage the war more aggressively, but back in the Pentagon, Cohen and Shelton were more cautious. They would give Clark instructions on, for instance, the scale of the bombing campaign. "Clark would say, 'Uh-huh, gotcha'," says NEWSWEEK's source. But then he would pick up the phone and call [British Prime Minister] Tony Blair and [Secretary of State] Madeleine [Albright]." As Clark knew full well, Blair and Albright were more hawkish than Shelton and Cohen. After talking to the State Department and NATO allies, Clark would have a different set of marching orders, says the source, who has spoken about the matter with both Cohen and Clark. "Then, about 1 o'clock, the Defense Department would hear what Clark was up to, and Cohen and Shelton would be furious."

Shelton had commented shortly after Clark entered the race that he had been fired from his position for "integrity and character issues." The article also says:

As an ambitious officer, Clark gained a reputation among his peers for telling different people what they wanted to hear, without seeming to realize that his listeners might later compare notes and accuse Clark of being two-faced.

This jibes with what my friends in the military have said about Clark. I have a feeling that this revelation won't have much impact in New Hampshire, as it is still rather vague. I don't see Clark having much chance unless he finishes at least second in the primary, otherwise he's toast. He could be aiming for VP, though it's still beyond my feeble powers of comprehension why anyone one would want the job.